• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and 프라그마틱 게임 video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 게임 they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 게임 metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.